Remove ui::KeycodeConverter::CodeToNativeKeycode().

ui/events/keycodes/dom4/keycode_converter_unittest.cc

Index: ui/events/keycodes/dom4/keycode_converter_unittest.cc
diff --git a/ui/events/keycodes/dom4/keycode_converter_unittest.cc b/ui/events/keycodes/dom4/keycode_converter_unittest.cc
index d6dcbe0c128ae9c18550ea712d1f18b1f100656c..6d8be6b4a0a18e6ea4fd94c24f5109d2de337c84 100644
--- a/ui/events/keycodes/dom4/keycode_converter_unittest.cc
+++ b/ui/events/keycodes/dom4/keycode_converter_unittest.cc
@@ -37,8 +37,9 @@ TEST(UsbKeycodeMap, Basic) {
             keycode_map[0].usb_keycode);
   EXPECT_EQ(ui::KeycodeConverter::InvalidNativeKeycode(),
             keycode_map[0].native_keycode);
-  EXPECT_EQ(ui::KeycodeConverter::InvalidNativeKeycode(),
-            ui::KeycodeConverter::CodeToNativeKeycode("Unidentified"));
+  EXPECT_EQ(
+      ui::KeycodeConverter::InvalidNativeKeycode(),
+      ui::KeycodeConverter::DomCodeToNativeKeycode(ui::DomCode::NONE));
 
   // Verify that there are no duplicate entries in the mapping.
   std::map<uint32_t, uint16_t> usb_to_native;
@@ -55,17 +56,16 @@ TEST(UsbKeycodeMap, Basic) {
         entry->native_keycode,
         ui::KeycodeConverter::UsbKeycodeToNativeKeycode(entry->usb_keycode));
 
-    // Verify CodeToNativeKeycode and NativeKeycodeToCode work correctly.
+    // Verify DomCodeToNativeKeycode and NativeKeycodeToCode work correctly.
+    ui::DomCode dom_code =
+        ui::KeycodeConverter::CodeStringToDomCode(entry->code);

[Wez, 2015/05/05 20:11:48]

You only need this because you're testing DomCode->native and
native->DomCodeString - if you also switch to native->DomCode->DomCodeString
flow then this test will be simpler, with no need to deal w/ the string form
(and you could then test the DomCode<->DomCodeString mapping separately).

[kpschoedel, 2015/05/05 20:48:50]

Done. (DomCode<->DomCodeString is tested in KeycodeConverter.DomCode below)

     if (entry->code) {
       EXPECT_EQ(entry->native_keycode,
-                ui::KeycodeConverter::CodeToNativeKeycode(entry->code));
-      EXPECT_STREQ(
-          entry->code,
-          ui::KeycodeConverter::NativeKeycodeToCode(entry->native_keycode));
-    }
-    else {
-      EXPECT_EQ(ui::KeycodeConverter::InvalidNativeKeycode(),
-                ui::KeycodeConverter::CodeToNativeKeycode(entry->code));
+                ui::KeycodeConverter::DomCodeToNativeKeycode(dom_code));
+      EXPECT_STREQ(entry->code, ui::KeycodeConverter::NativeKeycodeToCode(
+                                    entry->native_keycode));

[Wez, 2015/05/05 20:11:48]

nit: More readable to wrap after "code," and keep the NativeKeycodeToCode() call
on a single line?

[kpschoedel, 2015/05/05 20:48:50]

Agreed — I liked the old clang-format rule better — but the line is gone now.

+    } else {
+      EXPECT_EQ(ui::DomCode::NONE, dom_code);
     }
 
     // Verify that the USB or native codes aren't duplicated.